Symptom of running out of subnet?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
I need to expand subnetmask pretty soon. Hoping to do it on long weekend. Give me enough time to fix any problem that may arise.
-
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
Look at the PC that is broke and the application server. What are their IP settings?
Example:
The server is 192.168.1.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.1
The desktop is 192.168.2.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.2.1
Those are two devices on different subnets.In order to ping from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.1.2, the system will route it through the gateway because the destination is on another subnet.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
Look at the PC that is broke and the application server. What are their IP settings?
Example:
The server is 192.168.1.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.1
The desktop is 192.168.2.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.2.1
Those are two devices on different subnets.In order to ping from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.1.2, the system will route it through the gateway because the destination is on another subnet.
In that case I believe our Firewall also act as router. Because we are able to ping ip phones
-
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
Look at the PC that is broke and the application server. What are their IP settings?
Example:
The server is 192.168.1.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.1
The desktop is 192.168.2.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.2.1
Those are two devices on different subnets.In order to ping from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.1.2, the system will route it through the gateway because the destination is on another subnet.
In that case I believe our Firewall also act as router. Because we are able to ping ip phones
Your "firewall" is a router with additional firewall capabilities.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
Look at the PC that is broke and the application server. What are their IP settings?
Example:
The server is 192.168.1.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.1
The desktop is 192.168.2.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.2.1
Those are two devices on different subnets.In order to ping from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.1.2, the system will route it through the gateway because the destination is on another subnet.
In that case I believe our Firewall also act as router. Because we are able to ping ip phones
Your "firewall" is a router with additional firewall capabilities.
That make sense when you put it that way.
So do you think subneting may fix the dns cycle issue? What does a good/clean DNS looks like? -
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.@JaredBusch said in Symptom of running out of subnet?:
@Jason said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch
I am 90% certain it is not enough. Both subnet mask are still /24. I have roughly 170 devices on subnet1 and 90 devices on subnet2.Is there a router between the two?
Need more coffee... Yeah, you are already on 2 different subnets? Then are you sure you are routing correctly? Also, you will have to be relying on DNS and not NetBIOS if this is really true.
All the devices on subnet2 are statics. They are the phone server and the ip phones. The application in question is to keep log of calls (inbound/outbound/missed/etc)
I did configure a gateways to our Firewall (watchguard) switch. Each subnet has its own gateway.Yes, subnets would need a gateway to be networked to anything. How do they talk to each other, though?
-
@LAH3385 said:
In that case I believe our Firewall also act as router. Because we are able to ping ip phones
For all intents and purposes, firewalls and routers are the same thing. It's been decades since anyone made a router without firewall capabilities. The terms are really interchangeable especially in the SMB.
-
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
Look at the PC that is broke and the application server. What are their IP settings?
Example:
The server is 192.168.1.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.1
The desktop is 192.168.2.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.2.1
Those are two devices on different subnets.In order to ping from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.1.2, the system will route it through the gateway because the destination is on another subnet.
In that case I believe our Firewall also act as router. Because we are able to ping ip phones
Your "firewall" is a router with additional firewall capabilities.
That make sense when you put it that way.
So do you think subneting may fix the dns cycle issue? What does a good/clean DNS looks like?No, subnetting and DNS should not be related. If tehre is a problem like this, likely it will get carried through.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
It is that kind of moment that somehow it works momentary, but you cannot sustain it, but it works, but you don't know how is it working, but it works...
Look at the PC that is broke and the application server. What are their IP settings?
Example:
The server is 192.168.1.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.1
The desktop is 192.168.2.2/24 with a gateway of 192.168.2.1
Those are two devices on different subnets.In order to ping from 192.168.2.2 to 192.168.1.2, the system will route it through the gateway because the destination is on another subnet.
In that case I believe our Firewall also act as router. Because we are able to ping ip phones
Your "firewall" is a router with additional firewall capabilities.
That make sense when you put it that way.
So do you think subneting may fix the dns cycle issue? What does a good/clean DNS looks like?No, subnetting and DNS should not be related. If tehre is a problem like this, likely it will get carried through.
Our DNS was inherited from an old company (same CEO). I do not know what has been done, and I don't usually mess with DNS. All I know is DNS works with DHCP in some way. Is there something I might be missing?
-
@LAH3385 said:
All I know is DNS works with DHCP in some way. Is there something I might be missing?
Only in the fact that DHCP hands out DNS, and DHCP can register in DNS if you are using windows DHCP/DNS.
No more related than the fact that DHCP can handout TFTP or SIP config but it is not tied into them.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
While this is true - a Layer 3 switch can route between subnets - that's what I do for my VLANs. I don't have a router handle this, I have a my layer 3 switch handle it.
-
From the computer having the problem, run
tracert xxx.xxx.xxx.xxxReplace the x's with the IP of the server.
Do that same thing from the server to the PC's IP address.
Post the results if you can.
Also post the results from ipconfig /all from both.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@LAH3385 said:
@Jason
Not that I am aware of. They are connected by a switch.You cannot access TCP/IP across two different subnets without something routing traffic.
While this is true - a Layer 3 switch can route between subnets - that's what I do for my VLANs. I don't have a router handle this, I have a my layer 3 switch handle it.
I never said a router. I said something routing traffic, which does of course include a L3 switch with routing capabilities.
-
@Dashrender said:
While this is true - a Layer 3 switch can route between subnets - that's what I do for my VLANs. I don't have a router handle this, I have a my layer 3 switch handle it.
Some people argue that there is something unique there. But those of us from the old days have long pointed out that an L3 Switch is a marketing term for a multiport router. Anything doing routing on L3 is a router, no matter what marketing label is put on it. There is value to knowing what is considered a switch or not, but I've never seen any definition of router that does not completely include an L3 switch every time. It's just that L3 switches do L3 and L2 transparently across many ports.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
While this is true - a Layer 3 switch can route between subnets - that's what I do for my VLANs. I don't have a router handle this, I have a my layer 3 switch handle it.
Some people argue that there is something unique there. But those of us from the old days have long pointed out that an L3 Switch is a marketing term for a multiport router. Anything doing routing on L3 is a router, no matter what marketing label is put on it. There is value to knowing what is considered a switch or not, but I've never seen any definition of router that does not completely include an L3 switch every time. It's just that L3 switches do L3 and L2 transparently across many ports.
LOL - good point.
-
I've search on finding the differences but they are clearly wrong. Like so wrong that how anyone buys them I don't know. I see weird claims like the difference is speed, or that router means software and switch means ASIC. Which is absolutely false. Routing is a function, not an implementation, routers have long been offered on ASICs. Switches can be done in software. Both are specific network things, not "types of hardware."
I saw another that said that routers have WAN interfaces and L3 Switches do not. Also obviously false. Any port can be either. Most routers don't have anything but Ethernet ports. Some switches have non-Ethernet options.
The degree to which people just make up illogical crap to try to excuse the marketing around the L3 switch concept is extreme. bottom line appears to be... it's totally made up and isn't actually a thing at all.
-
There is a lot of "typically it means this" and that is somewhat useful. Switches are typically faster, have more ports, are implemented in custom hardware, etc. But typical does not a technology define. There do not appear to be any definitions that actually differentiate one from the other just this kind of "feeling" that people have.
Which is fine, it's a marketing term. Just important to know that an L2 switch is really a "multiport bridge" and an L3 switch is really a "multiport router" and anything beyond that is really just "generally acceptable generalities around marketing and intended use cases."
